A simple reform to help the malpractice crisis:
Some argue that a “loser pays” system would keep poor people from suing. I say it should keep poor people from suing – if they have a frivolous claim. Those with legitimate claims shouldn’t have too much of a problem with their suits. And if the “loser pays” system is so bad, why do most other countries keep it around instead of switching over to an “Americanized” system of tort law?
Related posts:
- Loser pays: A cerebral palsy trial in Canada may bankrupt the plaintiff
- "Maternity care is a money loser for most hospitals, and there is no break-even point"
- The overzealous jury, for the defense
- They make it sound so simple
- Health care is a right, who pays for it?
- Sore loser
- "Why do doctors treat anyone who practices malpractice law?"
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 14 comments }
Loser pays is a different concept from “filer of frivolous claim” pays.
We already have the latter, if you are willing to countersue and prove a claim for damages was utterly lacking in any reasonable foundation in law or facts?
Losing isn’t the same as having a frivolous case. Why do you persist in your willful misunderstanding/miuse of the term?
If you want to persuade others to adopt radical changes in the tort system, I can see why you bend terms to inflame and confuse. But it is dishonest, and I think if you REALLY want to persuade, the truth should be enough. Why is it good to make only cases guaranteed to win, to trial?
It means that cases that NEED trying, where experts disagree, or testimony and facts won’t come out until litigation is instigated, mean that injured parties face risk of future additional financial injury if they pursue compensation. That’s wrong, IMO, where there is a rational basis in law and the facts for bringing the claim.
Most states already have loser pays. And it’s not nearly as prevalent in other countries, at least in the form physicians think, as they claim.
Kevin, do you equate losing with frivolousness?
Actually Loser Pays is a great reform but not just for medicine. It should be for all suits. Then we would stop some of the class action insanity and other insane suits as profiled in Overlawyered.com, like the lawyer suing in New York for 400,000 because her wedding flowers were the ewrong color, or the lawyer suing and putting out of business the drycleaners.
Your last one is a bad example, since the court did order costs to be paid.
Citing Overlawyered as an accurate or even useful source about the justice system is akin to citing the ATLA website. Both are nothing more than lobbyists for their clients.
Wait – The dry cleaning case – the court ordered costs to be paid?
Is this what you meant? I don’t know all the facts of that case, but if what you say is true,
These lawyers put this family out of business. They are denied the goodwill they built into their business after how many years of hard work.
Coats? You’ve got to be kidding me. The loss to this family, if what you say is true, certainl;y exceeds, by many orders of magnitude, the costs of the case.
Why are those people out of business? They spent $12K on attorneys’ fees, and were reimbursed. If Bill Clinton can raise millions for his legal fees, you’re telling me not one tort reform group would spend a few grand on these people? That this presumably successful dry cleaner did not have any ability to come up with $12K over a few months?
Really?
Maybe they decided it was not worth the risk of future litigation to be in that area. A dry cleaning business is not worth the risk of losing a $52-million-dollar lawsuit.
If the lawyer had been less greedy and sued for a hundred grand, it might not have received press attention and the dry cleaner would be bankrupt.
Personally, I think the only reason the guy was censured was the national attention. Absent that, he would likely have been voted barrister of the year.
Call me crazy, I bet the Korean had this crazy idea that his liability if he ruined pants, would be limited to something along the order of replacing the pants. Probably something he learned in Korea.
Maybe he moved to the dry cleaning equivalent of Texas. Maybe, unlike Clinton, the Koreans did not care for the limelight.
“Your last one is a bad example, since the court did order costs to be paid…”
I am pretty sure that this is inaccurate. I recall that the legal discussion regarding this case revealed that it is not posible to recover legal expenses in DC. They requested that their court costs be paid. This represents a small fraction of the actual cost of the defense. I also recall that the plaintiff is fighting this order. Their actual legal costs were paid by charitable donations. Most people subjected to a frivolous lawsuit can’t count on a bake sale to bail them out.
Actually, its a pretty good example. Its your understanding that is bad. BTW, who is the sinister force behind Overlawyered?
“http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2007/06/pants-lawsuit-ends-in-victory-for-dry.html”
The details are above, although it doesn’t seem the media has seen fit to tell us whether the judge sanctioned him. You absolutely can recover your costs in DC.
Most truly frivolous lawsuits are filed in small claims by people acting pro se. While the case may be illustrative of the fact that anyone can file any claim in the courthouse, it’s not indicative of the fact that the justice system doesn’t give justice on those claims. It would be pretty difficult for the system to be able to reject claims BEFORE they are filed.
I would encourage you to not just believe what you read simply because it agrees with your previously informed opinions.
There is nothing sinister behind Overlawyered, anymore than there is anything sinister behind AAJ. They’re simply lobbyists. Overlawyered’s site is run by longtime corporate lawyers who are now primarily paid to lobby. Same as Common Good, and the various state tort reform organizations (which were initially funded by the tobacco industry). You can verify all the above with a simple Google and see the original source documents.
“A dry cleaning business is not worth the risk of losing a $52-million-dollar lawsuit.”
What do you think the odds of them being ordered to pay $52 million were? Do you think that just because it’s put in a court filing it’s likely to happen? There’s a woman in my county who every month goes down to small claims court and files suit against the President for millions because she believes he’s got a bug in her car, home, etc. Should he be worried?
“Personally, I think the only reason the guy was censured was the national attention. Absent that, he would likely have been voted barrister of the year.”
Well, with your extensive knowledge of the law, I don’t see how you can be wrong!
The President has specific protection against those frivolous lawsuits. With your “extensive knowledge” you should know that. The Korean dry cleaner does not.
You may find this hard to believe, but normal people don’t like being sued, going to court, defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits, waiting to be sure they really don’t owe the 52 mil, or any fraction thereof.
You may think it’s a joke. I doubt the Koreans did.
I think your knowledge base and your opinions based on that lack of knowledge are a joke. I think the suit is obnoxious, and I’m glad the judge sanctioned him.
Maybe if you lawyers cleaned up your act, opinions like mine would not be held by the vast majority of Americans. Lawyers always rank near the bottom in opinion polls of honesty. There’s a reason for that.
Pat yourself on the back, your profession can add “dry cleaners” to “obstetricians” and other honest endeavors driven out of business thanks to your greed. You still have “drug dealers” to beat out in the honesty polls in your race to the bottom.
Comments on this entry are closed.